From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2918 invoked by alias); 3 May 2011 10:14:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2883 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2011 10:14:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FAKE_REPLY_C,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (HELO outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de) (130.133.4.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 10:14:09 +0000 Received: from relay1.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.67]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1QHCcJ-0008UE-Rt>; Tue, 03 May 2011 12:14:07 +0200 Received: from mx.physik.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.64.218]) by relay1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1QHCcJ-0006Xi-OT>; Tue, 03 May 2011 12:14:07 +0200 Received: from squeeze64.physik.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.66.239]) by mx.physik.fu-berlin.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHCcJ-0003x4-Hf; Tue, 03 May 2011 12:14:07 +0200 Received: from tburnus by squeeze64.physik.fu-berlin.de with local (Exim 4.72 #1 (Debian)) id 1QHCcJ-0007jI-Eh; Tue, 03 May 2011 12:14:07 +0200 Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 10:14:00 -0000 From: Tobias Burnus To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [testsuite] Compile gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_6.f08 with -ffloat-store [fwd: tobias.burnus@physik.fu-berlin.de] Message-ID: <20110503101407.GA29709@physik.fu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 Rainer, Rainer Orth wrote: > Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > This is OK. We are working on a solution, so maybe it would be better to > > XFAIL it so that when it does get fixed it will be flagged. It also fails > > on i686-pc-gnu. > > is this a solution for this particular case or for the general need to > sometimes use -ffloat-store? In the former case, I'd agree, in the > latter it's probably better to consistently use -ffloat-store in the > testcases and review those uses once a solution is in place. I think the issue is PR 48602 - wrong I/O output due to wrong rounding and algorithm bugs. The PR has been mostly fixed, but the excess precision of the x87 processor still causes failures. One solution might be to compile the whole libgfortran/io/ with -fexcess-precision=standard. Adding a single "asm volatile ("" : "+m" (temp))" proved to be insufficient. Tobias PS: Especially as you are listed as testsuite maintainer, I would be happy if you could comment on the testsuite patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-04/msg00331.html